Author
Topic: A Lens Roadmap? [CR1] (Read 17187 times)

A 200mm 2.8 that replaces the current 200mm 2.8 "L" and also has macro capabilities could be very interesting.

The EF-S list does seem very strange and has me doubting this.

One odd thought occurred to me though – could the EF-S list be referring to full-frame equivalents? For example an EF-S lens that is the equivalent of a full frame 20-65mm would make some sense.

On the other hand, I guess some of these might make sense if these were were fast, "L" quality lenses. An f1.8 or f2 20-65 (equivalent to 35-100) would be a very nice portrait lens and probably quite useful for wedding photographers using a 7D or 7DII.

Trying to keep it in perspective though. It is CR1 and most of the non-EF-S lenses would be pretty easy for anyone to guess if they just read this forum regularly.

After seeing Canon's patent for a 14-24 f/2.8L, I am rather disappointed there's no mention of this lens.

...sure, no mention about it. I'd like to see such a lens (as many of us, Canon shooters). But was there any info abou 28 f/2.8 IS USM ? Lenses are always difficult to predict because there are loads of patents floating around.

hmm The EF-S 70-400 is an interesting one for me. Although has others have said i have been led to understrand (from this site) that there is no advantage to telephoto ef-s lenses.

If priced well (£800ish) this could see Canon taking away a lot of sales from the like of Sigma and Tamron who offer good quality 400-500mm zooms in this price bracket (Sigma 120-400 and 150-500 etc) and who cant stretch to the 100-400L which is over £1200.

If the new 100-400mm is nearer £2000 as rumored, there would be room for an ef-s 70-400 in the sub £1000 bracket.

So help me understand this. Canon is admitting that the image quality between the 50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/1.2 is negligible. To fix that, they're going to nuke one of the most popular lens values on the market, and force the consumer to choose between the cheaper, more inferior f/1.8 and the much more expensive f/1.2. Am I understanding that correctly?

I have the f/1.4, and while it has it's flaws, I'm not giving it up anytime soon. Of course, all of this is assuming that the proposed f/1.8 II IS is a replacement for the f/1.4, and that build/image quality of the new lens still isn't up to that of the f/1.4. I would just hate to see them give up a lens for people like me, who don't have a pro budget but still understand the value of quality glass on their camera.

Logged

In landscape photography, when you shoot is more important than where.

So help me understand this. Canon is admitting that the image quality between the 50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/1.2 is negligible. To fix that, they're going to nuke one of the most popular lens values on the market, and force the consumer to choose between the cheaper, more inferior f/1.8 and the much more expensive f/1.2. Am I understanding that correctly?

I have the f/1.4, and while it has it's flaws, I'm not giving it up anytime soon. Of course, all of this is assuming that the proposed f/1.8 II IS is a replacement for the f/1.4, and that build/image quality of the new lens still isn't up to that of the f/1.4. I would just hate to see them give up a lens for people like me, who don't have a pro budget but still understand the value of quality glass on their camera.

+1 The 50mm f/1.4 is my most used lens. I'd much rather have the wider aperture than IS. I'm still hoping that a 50mm f/1.4 II is released as "kit lens" with the 5D Mk III, X , or whatever they call it. I also think a 50mm f/1.8 IS goes along with the 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses just announced (neither of which are on that "road map"): designed for the "consumers," not the "amateurs." If not, then I'd seriously have to consider the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4. No auto-focus, so I'd have to get the Eg-S screen.

Hmmm so the one single non-L prime that needs more replacing than any lens in the entire lineup (yes even more than the 24mm 2.8 did), the 50mm 1.4, is not even on the road map???

I guess Canon likes the continuous profit they get form that model as people send it in for a $100 repair for the AF every year.... and $ for constant focus re-calibrations which never make do succeed in making it not need a different focus adjustment for different target distance....

Pretty sad if this is for year. 50mm 1.4 must be one of the single most popular primes and the Canon version has terrible erratic AF that is prone to breakage and they still refuse to just remake it with a proper ring USM???

Ok, but by my reckoning, right now it's winter 2012. So, if the 24-70 II was final in winter 2011, what does that mean for the other lenses? Or does winter start earlier in Japan?

The disaster probably pushed back some of the lenses. My guess would be the farther back the expected release date the less of a delay there will be and perhaps only the ones pegged for 2011 will see delay at all.

Hmmm so the one single non-L prime that needs more replacing than any lens in the entire lineup (yes even more than the 24mm 2.8 did), the 50mm 1.4, is not even on the road map???

I guess Canon likes the continuous profit they get form that model as people send it in for a $100 repair for the AF every year.... and $ for constant focus re-calibrations which never make do succeed in making it not need a different focus adjustment for different target distance....

Pretty sad if this is for year. 50mm 1.4 must be one of the single most popular primes and the Canon version has terrible erratic AF that is prone to breakage and they still refuse to just remake it with a proper ring USM???

Just remember that neither the 24mm nor 28mm lenses just announced were on this road map, while the 24-70mm f/2.8L II was. Therefore, just because a 50mm f/1.4 II isn't on this list, that doesn't mean it isn't coming.

If this list has any legitimacy, and it probably doesn't, its origin probably answers questions.

If it's from the development area, winter 2011 may be the end of their involvement. From there, manufacturing process, tooling, etc. have to be set up. Production numbers have to be determined based on market analysis, etc., etc., etc.

It's possible the winter 2011 could simply be a typo. I often type 2011 when I mean to type 2012, especially this early in the year.

What's most probable to me is that it's a feeler from some marketing satan. They could honestly be looking for some customer feedback. Or it could be some low-level satan trying to build an argument for his pet project -- "look at all the comments that were made on the EF 60 L," he might end up saying. "I think they really want that."

Lastly, it could have nothing to do with Canon -- perhaps just a knowledgeable person with an interest in running traffic through this site.

So, there are a few grains of salt to throw on the snows of this winter!